05 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYou're still just outright assuming that God has the right to do whatever with His creatures. Again, that's just question-begging. In virtue of what does He possess such a right to begin with? Like, give me some actual reasons to think He has such a right in the first place...otherwise, what reason do I have to take you seriously here?
God has setup laws with man, but at no time in any of those laws or
covenants does God relinquish His right or authority at any time. The latest
was with God when Jesus came, even there at no time does God give up
what is His, the right to do with His own.
Kelly
05 Nov 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloWell the process of copulation in itself does not start life as many trys do not always start the action of the egg becoming fertile. But I do understand your question as the action that could start life is started by the parents. But the point is without God giving the gift of life or the spark to actually make the life begin with copulation, no egg would ever come to life. Only God causes that last step to happen. Basically if God stopped this process that he is behind by his power, no life would start or continue.But I'm not the one who gave them their life, God did. So no I would have no right to ever take their life.
Well, there is indeed a sense in which you and your spouse proximately "gave them their life". But, regardless, what does the origin or source of their life have to do with anything here? Why is that a relevant consideration? I ...[text shortened]... doing so, would you have the right to treat that sentient creature just any old way you pleased?
This is a major point that many miss. Life on this planet is not some blindless thing that would happen with or without a God. It would be impossible without a God.
And if hypothetically I could create a new life then I would be a God just as the one we are speaking of in this thread. Then as he does have the right to take it back, then I suppose I would too.
05 Nov 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloGod has setup laws with man, but at no time in any of those laws or
You're still just outright assuming that God has the right to do whatever with His creatures. Again, that's just question-begging. In virtue of what does He possess such a right to begin with? Like, give me some actual reasons to think He has such a right in the first place...otherwise, what reason do I have to take you seriously here?
covenants does God relinquish His right or authority at any time. From
the beginning God was, is, and will always be sovereign. Now if you
wish to suggest you have some claim against the sovereign God, by
all means make your claims. Otherwise you just show your rebellion not
unlike Satan, by suggesting you reject God's authority over His own.
Kelly
05 Nov 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloTo even start to understand this you would have to be God. What I mean is with the way the Bible describes him and what he has allowed us to know by those many descriptions, actions, laws, commands, judgements to us on many things, he has wisdom that we will never completely know.
You're still just outright assuming that God has the right to do whatever with His creatures. Again, that's just question-begging. In virtue of what does He possess such a right to begin with? Like, give me some actual reasons to think He has such a right in the first place...otherwise, what reason do I have to take you seriously here?
But we do know some very important things that should help us to understand his justice. The Bible describes his attributes and the most important to us is his love for us humans that he created.
Many feel God does not exist or if he does he's left us to our own will and has no interest.
But in fact it is just the oppisite. If he didn't love us we would no doubt not exist today.
But by his love and extreme concern for our futures he started the process the second Adam sinned to fix the problems that sin created.
So simply put God created us, gave us life and has every right at anytime to stop it or even just destroy all we see and either start over.
Man has made the mistake of turning their backs on him and even deny that he exist. Originally everything that man could ever need was being provided by God which man has failed terribly with.
So if man would simply follow God's ways we would prosper more then we could ever dream of. But God with his love and justice to protect those who follow his ways does have the right to take the life of anyone who does not accept those ways.
No different then a justice system within a goverment on earth protecting it's citizens.
06 Nov 13
Originally posted by Rank outsiderWhy do some women choose killing by abortion instead of a alternate option like adoption? Should women have the right to kill by abortion?
OK, answer me this. There are at least two accounts in the Bible, I believe, where children are killed by God. There may well be more.
Please justify to me why this is acceptable, other than by the 'because he is God' argument.
To clarify, I want an explanation as to why the omnipotent God killed innocent children instead of using his unlimited power to choose an alternative option that did not involve their murder.
The Instructor
06 Nov 13
From the Insight book #2:
Jehovah’s wisdom is far superior to that of imperfect humans, and man, not God, must learn the path of justice. (Isa 40:14) Thus man is in no position to judge God’s acts as just or unjust, but must learn to conform his thinking to the standard of justice that Jehovah has revealed in his Word. Said God to the Israelites: “As for my ways, are they not adjusted right, O house of Israel? Are not the ways of you people the ones that are not adjusted right?” (Eze 18:29) Also, Jehovah’s creatorship rules out all basis for questioning the rightness of his activities.—Ro 9:20, 21; see also Job 40:8–41:34.
Therefore, Jehovah has always rightly required that those desiring to gain his approval acquaint themselves with his standard of justice and follow it. (Isa 1:17, 18; 10:1, 2; Jer 7:5-7; 21:12; 22:3, 4; Eze 45:9, 10; Am 5:15; Mic 3:9-12; 6:8; Zec 7:9-12) Like God, they must be impartial, as a failure in this regard is unjust and violates the law of love. (Jas 2:1-9) However, the exercise of justice according to God’s standard is not a burden; man’s happiness actually depends on it. (Ps 106:3; compare Isa 56:1, 2.) This truth was acknowledged by the famous English jurist Blackstone: “[God] has so intimately connected, so inseparably interwoven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual, that the latter cannot be attained but by observing the former; and, if the former be punctually obeyed, it cannot but induce the latter.”—Chadman’s Cyclopedia of Law, 1912, Vol. I, p. 88.
06 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75
Well the process of copulation in itself does not start life as many trys do not always start the action of the egg becoming fertile. But I do understand your question as the action that could start life is started by the parents. But the point is without God giving the gift of life or the spark to actually make the life begin with copulation, no egg wou ...[text shortened]... g of in this thread. Then as he does have the right to take it back, then I suppose I would too.
Life on this planet is not some blindless thing that would happen with or without a God. It would be impossible without a God.
That's absurd. Surely there are possible worlds wherein there exists life but no god. (I'm construing possibility here in the usual sense of logical possibility.)
And if hypothetically I could create a new life then I would be a God just as the one we are speaking of in this thread. Then as he does have the right to take it back, then I suppose I would too.
Well, again, that's just question-begging: you're just presupposing that God has such a right.
Regardless, you really believe that if you somehow developed the ability to create sentient beings, you would have the right to treat them any old way you please? Why exactly should one think that you would have such a right? Sentient beings, definitionally, are such that they certain psychological capacities, such as consciousness. So, imagine in this hypothetical that you were to create a sentient being that has self-consciousness, has its own subjective perspective from which things can go badly or well; can suffer and feel pain; perhaps is a rational being; etc. Why exactly should anyone think that you -- and just in virtue of being its creator ipso facto -- have the right to do anything you please with it? That simply doesn't follow at all. In fact, in view of the capacities this being holds, the only reasonable view here is that it qualifies as a moral patient, in that it is the receiver of moral actions. It matters how a moral patient is treated by moral agents, and not just derivatively so.
So, I am afraid your position just doesn't make any sense to me. Could you clarify please?
06 Nov 13
Originally posted by KellyJayAgain, you're just presupposing that God has such a right. Earth to KellyJay: that's what we are supposed to be debating in this thread!
God has setup laws with man, but at no time in any of those laws or
covenants does God relinquish His right or authority at any time. From
the beginning God was, is, and will always be sovereign. Now if you
wish to suggest you have some claim against the sovereign God, by
all means make your claims. Otherwise you just show your rebellion not
unlike Satan, by suggesting you reject God's authority over His own.
Kelly
06 Nov 13
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75
To even start to understand this you would have to be God. What I mean is with the way the Bible describes him and what he has allowed us to know by those many descriptions, actions, laws, commands, judgements to us on many things, he has wisdom that we will never completely know.
But we do know some very important things that should help us to underst ...[text shortened]... ways.
No different then a justice system within a goverment on earth protecting it's citizens.
To even start to understand this you would have to be God. What I mean is with the way the Bible describes him and what he has allowed us to know by those many descriptions, actions, laws, commands, judgements to us on many things, he has wisdom that we will never completely know.
How unfortunate that your position commits you to such a mysterious doctrine concerning the good and wisdom, etc. After all, if there are such divine nuggets of wisdom that are inaccessible to us, then more's the pity.
I thought your God was supposed to be some sort of moral exemplar. I guess not though, huh, if the moral worth of His actions are so shrouded in mystery to us earthlings. Apparently, if an earthling sanctions genocide, then that earthling must be evil; but when God does it, then it must be the case that God has some justifying reason that confounds us....Would you mind outlining in more detail how I should go about telling the difference between blameworthy genocidal behaviors and praiseworthy ones, for example?
06 Nov 13
Originally posted by checkbaiterHuh? I don't think "God needs rights". Let's try this again. You explicitly stated that God has the right to do whatever He pleases. Now, I'm asking you if you have any reasons why I should think that statement is correct. For instance, do you some argument that purports to show it is correct? If so, what is it? If not, then please just say so.
What makes you think God needs rights? Who would he answer to?
06 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by checkbaiterAlso, the question of "who would he answer to" is off topic. There is a very big difference between saying that S has a right to do X and simply saying that there is insufficient power to stop S from doing X if S wishes to do X. Relatedly, a right and the power to police a right are two different things.
What makes you think God needs rights? Who would he answer to?